Internet trolls are psychopaths and sadists, psychologists claim

Canadian researchers have confirmed what most people suspected all along:
that internet trolls are archetypal Machiavellian sadists.

In a survey conducted by the group of psychologists, people who partake in so-called trolling online showed signs of sadism, psychopathy, and were
Machiavellian in their manipulation of others and their disregard for morality.

The researchers defined online trolling as “the practice of behaving in a deceptive, destructive, or disruptive manner in a social setting on the
Internet” for no purpose other than their pleasure.

"If an unfortunate person falls into their trap, trolling intensifies for further, merciless amusement. This is why novice Internet users are
routinely admonished", 'Do not feed the trolls!', the study warned.

The team concluded that those who enjoyed trolling more than other activities, such debating and making friends, had tendencies in line with the
psychological “Dark Tetrad”.

The dark triad is a group of three personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. The use of the term "dark" reflects the
perception that these traits have interpersonally aversive qualities:

*Narcissism is characterized by grandiosity, pride, egotism, and a lack of empathy.

*Machiavellianism is characterized by manipulation and exploitation of others, a cynical disregard for morality, and a focus on self-interest and
deception.

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by
posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the
deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

First, ATS??? Not trying to be nasty or anything, but this is Troll Heaven, really, isn't it? I know that won't go over too well, but it's seems
pretty right on the mark. Just research the foundation of the website, for starters. It's like commercial fishing, for God's sake, in the internet
ocean…..

Second: As to your title and conclusion, about the psychology of such…..
well, nothing like the broad brush stroke being applied, is there? Sort of like saying jaywalkers are all anarchists….
T50

Ha. I'm sure he/she is, and I'm just too stupid to get it. Thanks for clarifying that for me and anyone who might have been too confused to get it..
The real scope of it is that someone wrote this in an article to begin with, right, as you so sanguinely pointed out in your first response, and
then linked with and reinforced a common perception that this is just the same old crap "humanity" comes up with. I swear if you want an all
encompassing view of how crappy humanity is on so many levels, this is the place to find it on any given day. Downright scary what happens with
just enough brain cells for thought, but not enough for anything beyond basic comprehension…..

People talk about having a different personality online, but is there really a clinical difference, in that someone can be a psychopath online, and
not a psychopath offline? This might sound cynical, but could this be a pre-requisite for a drive to diagnose people with psychopathologies to ensure
treatment programmes are economical?

Or, if we considered another filtering criteria . . . one might guesstimate 70-90% of all chronic, habitual, knee-jerk, addicted-to-naysaying
naysayers to exhibit significant amount of said trollish attitudes, traits and behaviors.

Reasonable critical thinking skepticism is one thing. But that sort of reasonable skepticism seems to have drowned on ATS and most of the net, in a
sea of immediately, chronically, habitually, reflexively, arbitrary, addicted, ATTACHMENT DISORDER fostered, borderline-to-clearly hostile/nasty,
pointed, prickly, sharp to assaultive, haughty, prissy naysaying.

It seems to have become THE RELIGION OF CHOICE, or at least the sub-dogma of choice. The religious fervor with which said folks engage in such
trollish naysaying is often startling to outrageous.

And of course, most to all such over-the-line trollish naysayers are 101% convinced of the supremely omniscient authoritative accuracy and
unassailable perfection of their perspective . . . or near so.

Is it any wonder that increasing numbers of thoughtful posters just abandon the whole bother of trying to initiate a thoughtful thread of substance on
anything remotely vulnerable to controversy? And what isn't vulnerable to such controversy in such a climate?

And, others, who MAY risk initiating a thread on a thoughtful topic will merely post their OP and then retreat or retire to avoid the machine gun
crossfire that inevitably results.

I don't know that I have a solution to suggest.

The ATS standard of civility helps keep the trollishness down to a slightly muffled dull roar. However, imho, that mostly results in hostile
trollishness cloaked in layers of prissiness and codewords that don't really fool anyone nor mollify anyone with the least bit of true civility.

I don't see a way around that. Folks will always find a way--within whatever rules--to express their true natures, their true heart and attitudinal
perspectives--however outrageous, haughty or mean-spirited--in whatever context.

And when such a black-hearted motivation is cloaked in layers of subterfuge . . . almost ANY attempt to reign it in will be met with mock
incredulity--some variation on "Whatever can you mean" . . . with the greatest practiced pretense of innocence.

That's all the more so when those tasked with reigning in such nastiness are over-worked volunteers--some given to being overly human in such
directions themselves--at least occasionally around the edges.

I think at the root, heart of the matter is a particularly virulent core of ATTACHMENT DISORDERED psyche virtually hell-bent on carving out
"meaningfulness," attention, "worth" DEFINED BY the numbers and intensities of upset to outrage they can trigger far and wide on the part of those
who fail to see reality the way the trolls do.

And, if they are lacking in folks on the scene to disagree starkly with, they'll turn on each other in a nit-picking frenzy full of almost as much
blood and knife slashing as is normally reserved for their overt, more opposite opponents.

I belong to ONE website that has a small sub-site engineered by the larger site owner and creator--of INVITATION ONLY members. There is some diversity
but mostly it is a congenial, collegial group of mostly similar values. While there's a significant degree of diversity along some limited issues and
lines--folks are mostly in agreement on the critical values in life--at least ostensibly. And, any nastiness is quickly shot down and the guilty are
well aware they are at risk for being quickly removed from the small congenial group if it persists. And that's a group of say 15-30 people; about
8-12 frequent posters.

I don't think that's very workable in a larger group--particularly a large very diverse group.

I have wondered . . . what would it mean to have a policy on ATS or similar boards where FOR THE FIRST 1-3 PAGES of a new thread, NO naysaying was
allowed. That ONLY after 1-3 pages of neutral to affirming posts could the naysaying begin.

That MIGHT do a number of things.

1. It would prevent the addicted-to-naysaying trolls from trashing a new thread right off the bat.

2. It would also force posters to at least empathetically CONSIDER the possibilities that the OP was either right &/or had some interesting points
worth considering or giving the benefit of the doubt.

3. It would set a standard and a precedent quite opposite to the current one--it would signal more demonstratively that hostile, chronically haughty
reflexive, arbitrary naysaying was NOT that welcome, nor respected, nor nice.

= = =

And/or perhaps alternatively . . . a new thread's OP's respondents could not post a naysaying post within the first 3-5 pages UNTIL AFTER they had
first posted 5-7 neutral to positive sentences about the OP. It might even be possible to program the software to monitor and moderate that issue.

Anyway--just trying to think outside the box toward dealing with the trollish dark tetrad mentioned in the OP. I think the OP is accurate. I think
it's a dreadful fact of net life--even on ATS.

I hate to break it to them but the "trolls" that they have studied are only the infant trolls.

You see I have been forever a "troll" on the internet, but my methods have evolved past what these so called "experts" have been researching.

You see I no longer hunger for "personal insults." Those are child's play. Not for me. You will see them every where on the internet mostly because
these "trolls" are between the ages of 11 and 15. 16-18 year old "trolls" have a more open mind when it comes to trolling and can begin to figure
out new ways of trolling. "Trolls" between the ages of 19-23 begin to either drift away from it, or harness their abilities to do far more worse
things than just making somebody cry. They can manage to make several dozens of people cry. Even make them question their own methods.

I hunger more for a challenge when it comes to trolling. Maybe you other trolls out there might not understand but throwing out a joke on someone
else's expense just doesn't do it anymore.

They both started at the same principles, but one has continued to further himself on trolling whilst the other has given it up.

This is just on youtube. These are the most vocal trolls you will ever encounter.

See these "trolls" are all about their proclaimed self image amongst other "trolls." If the trolls themselves begin to shy away from these
effigies they begin to give it up. They are either in it for the trolls, or in it for the fun. Usually the ones who are in it for the fun don't
really care about what others think, say, or do to another. But as they progress they get less and less "toxic."

I could go on forever about internet trolls, but you will run into one on every forum you have ever searched for. Even in yahoo answers, or medical
questions. I would say the chances of you running into an internet troll online in any comment, forum, suggestion, or public chat dialogue what so
ever is 1:1.001 (Based on personal experience.)

Stupid people existed before the internet. They had kids, and now those stupid kids have turned into stupid people with a keyboard. Those stupid
people will have, or already have kids, and they will find another avenue to display there inherited stupidity, and then before you know it, we have a
majority of stupid people

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.